What about the longest reign of a dynasty? For example it is said that Ottomans reigned for 623 years, but I don't know if this is the longest...

I had read once Zhou Dynasty of China (1122 BC - 256 BC) was the longest.

No, actually the longest ruling dynasty in the world, which continues to this day, is the Yamato dynasty of Japan. Although a precise starting date hasn't been establshed, tradition places the first emperor of the Yamato dynasty at 660BC.

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

You're missing Maju's point. You could have a 200-year-old human at a time when life expectancy was 18. Or life expectancy could be 90 and no-one live longer that 100.

Life expectancy is affected by medical and hygienic advances and the like. Maximum life span is largely genetic, it's unaffected by evolution (since living longer - past a certain age - doesn't increase the number of children), and so far we haven't done any serious genetic engineering in humans

No it is you that is not getting my point. If you have life expentancy at 18 the extreme would not exceed 60 years old (although the more primitive you are the greater the variance). Our age is partly determine by our genetics but our environment mosty determine how fast we die. Perhaps many of us have the potential to live perhaps 300 years in the best possible environment, but without the appropriate technology such as vaccination, proper diet and medication and in the future gene therapy you will die fast. The extreme are those who had exceptional genetics but still the limit put upon them by the environment will cut this life considerably. With an expected life of 18 year old, no one can live at 200 years, the variance is way to high and improbable. if you look at the chart, no one exceeded the 80 years in early egypt, and they certainly sampled a rather large number of bones and mostly the wealthiest. that's why if someone tell me that a Pharaoh reigned for more than 70 years, i would automatically dismissed such a statement as improbable, freaks exists but you don't bet on freaks, as simple as that. that the scientific approach. However you need to verify the statement, by analysing the specimen scientifically and perhaps looking at historical data to back such an extreme specimen (not shown on the chart). If you don't find such evidence, it would be more logical to deny that any king in such an early age lived that old rather than to accept.

well i think living to 96 is not that weird and he was king of egypt so you can consider that the 0.001% of that population life expectancy that time.

and Ramisses( spelling ) i think ruled for 60 years or so.

which is a good excuse for him to be considered God or something.

it will be weird when you go to some stories talking about someone rules for 20,000 years

i think that was the yellow king of china or something.

Rameses II rule for 66 years perhaps 65 years (1278 to 1212 B.C), to be taken with a pint of salt. Pharaohs were masters of propaganda, they did a lot of thing to be an outstanding, better than their predecessors. It was a world of proganda . Although test reveal a 90 year old longevity, which was considered as extremely rare for the time. He may have been a freak in reality. But I do not accept the test done on the ramses as proof enough, I'm very sceptical about the method use.

If you have life expentancy at 18 the extreme
would not exceed 60 years old (although the more primitive you are the
greater the variance). Our age is partly determine by our genetics
but our environment mosty determine how fast we
die. Perhaps many of us have the potential to live
perhaps 300 years in the best possible environment, but without the
appropriate technology such as vaccination, proper diet and medication
and in the future gene therapy you will die fast. The extreme
are those who had exceptional genetics but still the limit put upon
them by the environment will cut this life considerably. With an
expected life of 18 year old, no one can live at 200 years, the
variance is way to high and improbable. if you look at the chart, no
one exceeded the 80 years in early egypt, and they certainly
sampled a rather large number of bones and mostly the wealthiest.
that's why if someone tell me that a Pharaoh reigned for more than 70
years, i would automatically dismissed such a statement as improbable,
freaks exists but you don't bet on freaks, as simple as that. that
the scientific approach. However you need to verify the statement, by
analysing the specimen scientifically and perhaps looking at
historical data to back such an extreme specimen (not shown on the
chart). If you don't find such evidence, it would be more logical
to deny that any king in such an early age lived that old rather than
to accept.

That's not that way. If you take the demographic data from Niger for
instance, you will notice that while life expectancy is around 40-50
years, there are some that reach at least 90. And when you take the
data of a long-living developed country like Spain, where the life
expectancy is of around 80, there are still only a few that reach 90 or
more. We haven't expanded the maximum duration of life of people... we
just have reduced the risks of early death. Maybe the future brings
somethig different but, for what I know of the reasons of death,
typical of sexual (normally pluriceluar) species, it's going to be
truly difficult to defeat death. But anyhow that's another discussion.

If you have life expentancy at 18 the extreme would not exceed 60 years old (although the more primitive you are the greater the variance). Our age is partly determine by our genetics but our environment mosty determine how fast we die. Perhaps many of us have the potential to live perhaps 300 years in the best possible environment, but without the appropriate technology such as vaccination, proper diet and medication and in the future gene therapy you will die fast. The extreme are those who had exceptional genetics but still the limit put upon them by the environment will cut this life considerably. With an expected life of 18 year old, no one can live at 200 years, the variance is way to high and improbable. if you look at the chart, no one exceeded the 80 years in early egypt, and they certainly sampled a rather large number of bones and mostly the wealthiest. that's why if someone tell me that a Pharaoh reigned for more than 70 years, i would automatically dismissed such a statement as improbable, freaks exists but you don't bet on freaks, as simple as that. that the scientific approach. However you need to verify the statement, by analysing the specimen scientifically and perhaps looking at historical data to back such an extreme specimen (not shown on the chart). If you don't find such evidence, it would be more logical to deny that any king in such an early age lived that old rather than to accept.

That's not that way. If you take the demographic data from Niger for instance, you will notice that while life expectancy is around 40-50 years, there are some that reach at least 90. And when you take the data of a long-living developed country like Spain, where the life expectancy is of around 80, there are still only a few that reach 90 or more. We haven't expanded the maximum duration of life of people... we just have reduced the risks of early death. Maybe the future brings somethig different but, for what I know of the reasons of death, typical of sexual (normally pluriceluar) species, it's going to be truly difficult to defeat death. But anyhow that's another discussion.

nonsense, prove it Sir. Show me the age population distribution of Niger and Spain. if you don't I will.

This prove my point as time and technology progresses, the extremes are push further and further. My theory than human will reach 200 years (or perhaps 300 gene therapy excluded) is not so farfetched,a nd back by many experts in the field.

For the twentieth century, I think the record goes to King Sobhuza II
of Swaziland, 1899-1982. However, he was only six months old when
crowned, so Labotsibeni, his grandmother, ruled in his name until he
was twenty-two.

Cyrus, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Shapur II crowned before he
was born? Edward Gibbon claimed that for the coronation ceremony,
the Magi displayed the pregnant queen mother on a bed in the throne
room, and they placed the crown on her stomach.

In the case of Pepi II, I believe the Old Kingdom ended with him
because he outlived all the other men of the VI dynasty; a short-lived
queen named Nitocris succeeded him.

As for the longest-lived monarch alive today, I'd like to nominate
Bhumibol Adulyadej Rama IX; he has been in charge of Thailand since
1946.

Nothing truly great is achieved through moderation.--Prof. M.A.R. Barker

How many celebrate their 110th birthday? Statistically no one in either
place. And, while in Niger the life expectancy is extremely low, surely
much lower than in Ancient Tartessos or Egypt, at least in peacetime,
still a few reach their 80s and, we assume their 90s and even maybe
their 100s... not all die at their 40s suddenly!

How many celebrate their 110th birthday? Statistically no one in either place. And, while in Niger the life expectancy is extremely low, surely much lower than in Ancient Tartessos or Egypt, at least in peacetime, still a few reach their 80s and, we assume their 90s and even maybe their 100s... not all die at their 40s suddenly

Life expectancy in Niger is 42, way higher than in ancient egypt (check my pyramid for ancient egypt would be about 30 in ancient Egypt). How many reach 110 th, certainly much more in Spain than it would be in Niger and that speaking in proportion (Spain has 4 time more people than niger, 4 folds more in Spain mean equality with Niger but I'll bet my head that it would something in the order of 8 folds or more)

I thought I would make an honourable mention for the Persian King
Kosrau I, who was (so far as I know) the only monarch crowned whilst
still in the uterus. Supposedly a soothsayer guaranteed the child would
be a boy, lucky for him it was.

Anyway individuals could still be expected to live to a very ancient
age. In the same time period we see many of the most famous Hellenic
philosophers and humanists surviving until their 70s and 80s. As ruler
of one of the wealthiest and most advanced civilizations of the time
Pepi could expect the very highest in medical care available, living
comfortably in one of the most benign existences on the planet.

As ruler of one of the wealthiest and most advanced civilizations of the time Pepi could expect the very highest in medical care available, living comfortably in one of the most benign existences on the planet.

In the case of medieval methods I would agree with you, sadly the
ignorant church continually advised using leeches when it would most
likely kill the person. Yet ancient Egyptian medicine was quite
advanced. Much of it had only a mythical value and was little better
than a placebo, but it was still able to accurately predict the gender
of a child, relieve asthma and have some affect on the virulent
diseases the humid climate could induce.

This medicine had an effect in reducing stress or act like a mild pain killer or anti-biotics but overhall it was more about luck.

About leeches, what did the medieval people use it for. Do you know leeches have real medical application. leeches produce an anti-coagulant that improve circulation. Leeches have been used to restore blood circulation into a amputated body part that has beenreattached also used to treat skin grafts.

Leeches CAN be beneficial and I don't deny this for a second. The
problem occurs when application of leeches is done when this is the
last thing the patient needs. The principle behind applying leeches lay
in a rather warped church interpretation of the teachings of Galen, who
developed the theory of the bodily harmony being regulated by 4
humours. When a person was sick, the church concluded, it was because
of a glut of one of the humours. The only way to relieve this was to
bleed the excess humour out of the person through leeches.

In certain instances leeches are beneficial, still used today in the
right cases. But in medieval times the use of leeches was taken too
far, often having a counter-productive effect by draining a person of
preciously needed blood. It was still practiced until relatively
recently, in the 18th century we see Louis XV having leeches applied to
him and nearly killing him as a result. The fact he survived such a
treatment surprises me personally.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum